Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 1221 - AT - Customs
Seeking rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - section 129B (2) of Customs Act 1962 read with rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 - benefit of Nil rate of basic customs duty in terms of Sl. No.955 of N/N. 152/2009 Cus dated 31.12.2009 - HELD THAT - It to be settled that it is not permissible for anyone to re-open a proceeding under the garb of application for rectification of the earlier order. It is only an error apparent on the face of record which can be rectified even in terms of section 129B (2) of Customs Act and in terms of Rule 41 of CESTGAT Procedure Rules. An error apparent on the face of record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. In the case of Harivishnu Kaamat vs. Sayyad Ahmed Issac 1954 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT the Constitution Bench of Hon ble Apex Court has held that no error can be set to be apparent on the face of record if it is not manifest or self-evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. Conclusion - A rectification application can address errors apparent on the face of the record but not issues requiring substantive reevaluation or involving debatable legal questions. The question of entitlement of appellant pursuant to the Notification No. 151/2009 is opinioned to be a debatable issue. Hence is held to be beyond the scope of the impugned Miscellaneous application seeking rectification of mistake - Application allowed in part.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the rectification of an alleged error in a final order concerning the classification and duty exemption of imported goods. The issues include:
1. Whether the omission of discussion regarding Notification No. 151/2009 in the final order constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of a 'Nil' rate of duty under Notification No. 151/2009, given the classification of the goods under CTH 8517.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
1. Omission of Discussion on Notification No. 151/2009
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, which allow for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record. Precedents cited include the cases of Harivishnu Kaamat vs. Sayyad Ahmed Issac and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT, which clarify what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that an error apparent on the face of the record is one that is manifest and does not require extensive reasoning. The omission of a discussion on a plea raised by the appellant, specifically regarding Notification No. 151/2009, was considered an error of this nature.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had raised the issue of Notification No. 151/2009 in both written and oral submissions, yet the final order did not address this point.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that failure to consider a point raised in an appeal constitutes an error apparent on the record, warranting rectification.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Departmental Representative argued that the omission was not an error apparent, as the applicability of the notification involved debatable legal issues. The Tribunal, however, found that the mere failure to discuss the notification was an error that needed rectification.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the omission of discussion on Notification No. 151/2009 was an error apparent on the record and warranted rectification.
2. Entitlement to 'Nil' Rate of Duty under Notification No. 151/2009
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Notification No. 151/2009 provides a 'Nil' rate of duty for goods classified under CTH 8517, subject to certain conditions, including the provision of a certificate of origin.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal opined that the entitlement to the exemption under Notification No. 151/2009 was a debatable issue, as it involved verifying compliance with the conditions stipulated in the notification.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that the appellant had satisfied the conditions for exemption, such as providing a certificate of origin.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the issue of entitlement to the exemption was beyond the scope of a rectification application, as it required a substantive evaluation of compliance with the notification's conditions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued for the applicability of the exemption based on the classification of goods under CTH 8517. The Departmental Representative contended that multiple parameters needed consideration before granting the exemption.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that it could not address the appellant's entitlement to the exemption under Notification No. 151/2009 within the rectification application, as it would amount to reopening the case.
SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal stated, "An error apparent on the face of record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that a rectification application can address errors apparent on the face of the record, but not issues requiring substantive reevaluation or involving debatable legal questions.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal partially allowed the application by rectifying the omission of discussion on Notification No. 151/2009 in the final order. However, it declined to address the substantive issue of the appellant's entitlement to the exemption under the notification.